On October 07 2013 15:08 KwarK wrote: Still the Republicans mate.
I knew that was coming lol.
If you already know the answer then there's no point in asking, is there?
Negotiation is out of the question because this is a fucking insane tactic, it has nothing to do with what is actually being "bargained" for.
No, I knew it wouldn't change any of your minds because you have to look past all that in the first place to say it's the republicans who are throwing the temper tantrum.
Negotiation is an insane tactic? Apparently Obama can negotiate with Iran, but not the republicans? I guess all 5 presidents in 17 different government shutdowns who negotiated with the opposing party are "fucking insane" then too.
Ok, apparently you're not getting the difference between the strategy Republicans are currently employing and actual, normal negotiation processes. Here are three posts I wrote earlier in the US politics thread in an exchange with JonnyBNoHo that may help you understand why Republicans are entirely to blame here. Sorry for the kinda long read, but I think I made it quite clear why you cannot possibly argue the blame for the current crisis is shared or falls on the Democrats for "not negotiating".
On October 03 2013 23:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] [quote]
Congress has the power to "veto" any law or any line item in an existing law it doesn't like. This isn't a new power.
Congress has the power to repeal a law, which is not what's happening. What's happening is that the house speaker and his party are using a separate issue to force a repeal on a law that your Congress doesn't want to repeal (if it did, it would already have). I think the veto analogy sounds quite apt.
Congress also has power over funding. It can choose to fund or not fund any law it wants.
So, you're saying that your Congress doesn't want to fund the ACA despite not wanting to repeal it? Interesting. But if that's the case, wouldn't it have been much simpler to pass a law defunding the ACA without having to shut down the government?
The Senate wouldn't approve it, or if it did Obama would veto it. The only leverage House Republicans have comes from their power to approve of spending in general.
So they've forced a government shutdown to circumvent the democratic process in order to repeal a law they don't like. Sounds very much like a veto.
This is part of the democratic process. As the party controlling the House they have power over spending authorization.
House Reps have forced a government shutdown by not passing a clean CR. Senate Dems have forced a shutdown by not passing a CR with ACA defunding provisions.
lol yes we know its part of the democratic process Jonny. That's how it is happening.
It sounds like you're operating under a Just World delusion at this point. "But the system of governance allows it and the system must be perfect with all rational actors! There is no other possibility! If it was hostage taking then the system wouldn't allow it! Therefore it isn't hostage taking!"
You can use the phrase "hostage taking" if you want, but the political reality is that making demands and using what political leverage you have is pretty normal.
If the shoes were on the other feet I'd be saying the same thing. Obama used the Bush tax cut expiration as leverage to raise taxes. No one wanted taxes to go up on the middle class and the poor and so Obama "held the country hostage" to get what he wanted. That's politics.
With regards to the current situation, no, it is not "pretty normal" to do what the Republicans are doing, because usually what is used as leverage is "positive" changes in policies: "we will give you higher taxes on the rich if you give us entitlement reform". "We will give you votes for stimulus action if you give us votes for tax cuts". "We will give you votes to repeal the sequester if you give us votes on raising the retirement age". etc, etc. The point is that the baseline isn't supposed to be what is given to one of the two parties - they're both supposed to get something else than the already existing situation, and the incentive for negotiating is that both parties want to get away from the existing situation in particular ways, which means that (to simplify) successful negotiations will lead them both to gain something that will supplement the baseline/existing situation in the way that they want (they'll also "lose" something on the other front, but that loss is seen as less important to them than what they gained). In this case, however, the ACA is already the baseline. And what's more, the only incentive that Republicans have given to Democrats to reach a deal is the normal functioning of government. Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain that isn't already the baseline, and the cost of the negotiation failure is the destruction of the baseline (as in the entire functioning of the government). There is nothing "normal" about this.
On October 04 2013 08:03 kwizach wrote: With regards to the current situation, no, it is not "pretty normal" to do what the Republicans are doing, because usually what is used as leverage is "positive" changes in policies: "we will give you higher taxes on the rich if you give us entitlement reform". "We will give you votes for stimulus action if you give us votes for tax cuts". "We will give you votes to repeal the sequester if you give us votes on raising the retirement age". etc, etc. The point is that the baseline isn't supposed to be what is given to one of the two parties - they're both supposed to get something else than the already existing situation, and the incentive for negotiating is that both parties want to get away from the existing situation in particular ways, which means that successful negotiations will lead them both to gain something that will supplement the baseline/existing situation in the way that they want (they'll also "lose" something on the other front, but seen as less import. In this case, however, the ACA is already the baseline. And what's more, the only incentive that Republicans have given to Democrats to reach a deal is the normal functioning of government. Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain that isn't already the baseline.
Yes, there's supposed to be a give and take. I want the Democrats to ask for something in return for modest changes to the ACA. A stimulus for ACA reforms or gun control for ACA reforms. Whatever. As long as each side is making a reasonable demand I'm fine with it. Republicans need to keep it reasonable and Democrats need to open up.
You're forgetting something (I don't know if you saw the last two sentences I added to my original post to make it clearer): in a normal situation, failure to negotiate/to reach an agreement does not result in the destruction of the baseline (in this case, the functioning of the government) - it should be the maintaining of the said baseline, that both parties would want to depart from in some way. So for this to be a "normal" process of negotiation, the Republicans would fund the government normally and increase the debt ceiling, but they could for example offer a reduction in sequester cuts (which is what Democrats want that they don't currently have, since the baseline is the full sequester) in exchange for a delay in the implementation of the medical device tax, or its complete repeal (which is what Republicans want that they don't currently have, since the baseline is the full implementation of the ACA). Failure to reach agreement would result in the normal functioning of government and implementation of the ACA (which is already the law of the land), but it would mean both parties would not get something that they want (a reduction in sequester cuts for the Democrats, and the delay of some parts of the ACA for Republicans).
Again, the destruction of the baseline itself is NOT "normal" in a negotiation process.
On October 04 2013 10:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote: As for who's more to blame for not negotiating, I'd need to look into that. Right now there's a lot of BS floating around about who is / isn't negotiating. I know Reps have made some crazy demands around the ACA, but as your link reminded me Dems have been pretty rough when it has come to taxes.
It's not simply a matter of who's to blame for not negotiating. It's a matter of who's to blame for the current crisis situation. The answer to this is that the Republican party is to blame (I'm not going to go into the specific details of the influence of the Tea Party wing within it). The reasons are (at least) twofold:
1. It is the Republican party which adopted the strategy of making the destruction of the baseline (the government shutdown and, possibly, the failure to raise the debt limit and what comes with it) the result of negotiation failure. This, alone, means - as you agreed yourself - that we are not in a normal negotiation process. As I explained earlier, in a normal negotiation process, each party is supposed to gain something it wants in exchange for letting the other one gain something it wants. In the present case, Republicans want to gain something (the defunding of the ACA) while presenting the maintaining of the baseline (minus the ACA) as the Democrats' "gain", when it isn't an actual gain at all. An actual gain for Democrats would, for example, be the repeal of the sequester. Republicans are therefore clearly to blame here.
(let's also remark that by making this their general strategy, Republicans have in fact forced Democrats to refuse to accede to their demands, otherwise this would mean Republicans could simply use the same strategy over and over again without Democrats ever gaining anything from acceding to Republican demands)
2. It is the Republican party which has refused to engage in actual negotiations over the budget, and in fact even to enter a conference with Democrats to do just that six months ago. They have not shown themselves to be interested in letting the Democrats gain something in exchange for Republican gains.
On October 07 2013 15:41 KwarK wrote: Given that we know that Obama did personally authorise the extra-judicial murder of American citizens by the military I am baffled why people are trying to get him on a vague association with a bit of sea where you can't go fishing for the next few days. It's like getting Hitler on parking tickets.
I guess it's because it says alot when the effects of the shutdown aren't significant enough that the President feels he has to do "extra" so that it's noticed.
On October 07 2013 15:55 intrigue wrote: yergidy, the republicans are completely in the wrong on this one. i was writing a really sad and angry post in response to your posts but i figured it wouldn't help you understand at all. i've googled a decent analogy for you, hopefully it'll help you get over your fixation on the term "negotiation" and to consider the circumstances of the shutdown:
So, Imagine that the company you work for held a poll, and asked everyone if they thought it would be a good idea to put a soda machine in the break room. The poll came back, and the majority of your colleagues said “Yes”, indicating that they would like a soda machine. Some said no, but the majority said yes. So, a week later, there’s a soda machine.
Now imagine that Bill in accounting voted against the soda machine. He has a strong hatred for caffeinated soft drinks, thinks they are bad you you, whatever. He campaigns throughout the office to get the machine removed. Well, management decides “OK, we’ll ask again” and again, the majority of people say “Yes, lets keep the soda machine.”
Bill continues to campaign, and management continues to ask the employees, and every time, the answer is in favor of the soda machine. This happens, lets say… 35 times. Eventually, Bill says “OK, I’M NOT PROCESSING PAYROLL ANYMORE UNTIL THE SODA MACHINE IS REMOVED”, so nobody will get paid unless management removes the machine.
What should we do???
Answer: Fire Bill and get someone who will do the f*cking job.
Bonus: Bill tells everyone that he was willing to “Negotiate”, to come to a solution where everyone got their payroll checks, but only so long as that negotiation capitulated to his demand to remove the soda machine.
Bill is a f*cking jackass.
obviously it's not perfect, but you can see how the republicans are using the performance of their required duties as a bargaining chip. that is not a negotiation. there is no way the democrats can give in to this. there are other legitimate avenues for challenging the ACA (which the republicans have taken and failed in), but this is the basest, most irresponsible and vile way to do it.
Your analogy might be more accurate if the vending machine was only able to be operated as long as Bill in accounting agreed to replenish it, and the decision as to whether it should be replenished was his.
On October 07 2013 15:55 intrigue wrote: yergidy, the republicans are completely in the wrong on this one. i was writing a really sad and angry post in response to your posts but i figured it wouldn't help you understand at all. i've googled a decent analogy for you, hopefully it'll help you get over your fixation on the term "negotiation" and to consider the circumstances of the shutdown:
So, Imagine that the company you work for held a poll, and asked everyone if they thought it would be a good idea to put a soda machine in the break room. The poll came back, and the majority of your colleagues said “Yes”, indicating that they would like a soda machine. Some said no, but the majority said yes. So, a week later, there’s a soda machine.
Now imagine that Bill in accounting voted against the soda machine. He has a strong hatred for caffeinated soft drinks, thinks they are bad you you, whatever. He campaigns throughout the office to get the machine removed. Well, management decides “OK, we’ll ask again” and again, the majority of people say “Yes, lets keep the soda machine.”
Bill continues to campaign, and management continues to ask the employees, and every time, the answer is in favor of the soda machine. This happens, lets say… 35 times. Eventually, Bill says “OK, I’M NOT PROCESSING PAYROLL ANYMORE UNTIL THE SODA MACHINE IS REMOVED”, so nobody will get paid unless management removes the machine.
What should we do???
Answer: Fire Bill and get someone who will do the f*cking job.
Bonus: Bill tells everyone that he was willing to “Negotiate”, to come to a solution where everyone got their payroll checks, but only so long as that negotiation capitulated to his demand to remove the soda machine.
Bill is a f*cking jackass.
obviously it's not perfect, but you can see how the republicans are using the performance of their required duties as a bargaining chip. that is not a negotiation. there is no way the democrats can give in to this. there are other legitimate avenues for challenging the ACA (which the republicans have taken and failed in), but this is the basest, most irresponsible and vile way to do it.
Your analogy might be more accurate if the vending machine was only able to be operated as long as Bill in accounting agreed to replenish it, and the decision as to whether it should be replenished was his.
He is paid for the job, it is not "his decision". Do you understand what democracy means ?
On October 07 2013 15:55 intrigue wrote: yergidy, the republicans are completely in the wrong on this one. i was writing a really sad and angry post in response to your posts but i figured it wouldn't help you understand at all. i've googled a decent analogy for you, hopefully it'll help you get over your fixation on the term "negotiation" and to consider the circumstances of the shutdown:
So, Imagine that the company you work for held a poll, and asked everyone if they thought it would be a good idea to put a soda machine in the break room. The poll came back, and the majority of your colleagues said “Yes”, indicating that they would like a soda machine. Some said no, but the majority said yes. So, a week later, there’s a soda machine.
Now imagine that Bill in accounting voted against the soda machine. He has a strong hatred for caffeinated soft drinks, thinks they are bad you you, whatever. He campaigns throughout the office to get the machine removed. Well, management decides “OK, we’ll ask again” and again, the majority of people say “Yes, lets keep the soda machine.”
Bill continues to campaign, and management continues to ask the employees, and every time, the answer is in favor of the soda machine. This happens, lets say… 35 times. Eventually, Bill says “OK, I’M NOT PROCESSING PAYROLL ANYMORE UNTIL THE SODA MACHINE IS REMOVED”, so nobody will get paid unless management removes the machine.
What should we do???
Answer: Fire Bill and get someone who will do the f*cking job.
Bonus: Bill tells everyone that he was willing to “Negotiate”, to come to a solution where everyone got their payroll checks, but only so long as that negotiation capitulated to his demand to remove the soda machine.
Bill is a f*cking jackass.
obviously it's not perfect, but you can see how the republicans are using the performance of their required duties as a bargaining chip. that is not a negotiation. there is no way the democrats can give in to this. there are other legitimate avenues for challenging the ACA (which the republicans have taken and failed in), but this is the basest, most irresponsible and vile way to do it.
Your analogy might be more accurate if the vending machine was only able to be operated as long as Bill in accounting agreed to replenish it, and the decision as to whether it should be replenished was his.
He is paid for the job, it is not "his decision". Do you understand what democracy means ?
On October 07 2013 15:55 intrigue wrote: yergidy, the republicans are completely in the wrong on this one. i was writing a really sad and angry post in response to your posts but i figured it wouldn't help you understand at all. i've googled a decent analogy for you, hopefully it'll help you get over your fixation on the term "negotiation" and to consider the circumstances of the shutdown:
So, Imagine that the company you work for held a poll, and asked everyone if they thought it would be a good idea to put a soda machine in the break room. The poll came back, and the majority of your colleagues said “Yes”, indicating that they would like a soda machine. Some said no, but the majority said yes. So, a week later, there’s a soda machine.
Now imagine that Bill in accounting voted against the soda machine. He has a strong hatred for caffeinated soft drinks, thinks they are bad you you, whatever. He campaigns throughout the office to get the machine removed. Well, management decides “OK, we’ll ask again” and again, the majority of people say “Yes, lets keep the soda machine.”
Bill continues to campaign, and management continues to ask the employees, and every time, the answer is in favor of the soda machine. This happens, lets say… 35 times. Eventually, Bill says “OK, I’M NOT PROCESSING PAYROLL ANYMORE UNTIL THE SODA MACHINE IS REMOVED”, so nobody will get paid unless management removes the machine.
What should we do???
Answer: Fire Bill and get someone who will do the f*cking job.
Bonus: Bill tells everyone that he was willing to “Negotiate”, to come to a solution where everyone got their payroll checks, but only so long as that negotiation capitulated to his demand to remove the soda machine.
Bill is a f*cking jackass.
obviously it's not perfect, but you can see how the republicans are using the performance of their required duties as a bargaining chip. that is not a negotiation. there is no way the democrats can give in to this. there are other legitimate avenues for challenging the ACA (which the republicans have taken and failed in), but this is the basest, most irresponsible and vile way to do it.
Your analogy might be more accurate if the vending machine was only able to be operated as long as Bill in accounting agreed to replenish it, and the decision as to whether it should be replenished was his.
Except Ted from legal is also responsible for operating the vending machine, and Ted from legal is one of the guys whose idea it was to get the machine in the first place.
On October 07 2013 15:41 KwarK wrote: Given that we know that Obama did personally authorise the extra-judicial murder of American citizens by the military I am baffled why people are trying to get him on a vague association with a bit of sea where you can't go fishing for the next few days. It's like getting Hitler on parking tickets.
On October 07 2013 15:55 intrigue wrote: yergidy, the republicans are completely in the wrong on this one. i was writing a really sad and angry post in response to your posts but i figured it wouldn't help you understand at all. i've googled a decent analogy for you, hopefully it'll help you get over your fixation on the term "negotiation" and to consider the circumstances of the shutdown:
So, Imagine that the company you work for held a poll, and asked everyone if they thought it would be a good idea to put a soda machine in the break room. The poll came back, and the majority of your colleagues said “Yes”, indicating that they would like a soda machine. Some said no, but the majority said yes. So, a week later, there’s a soda machine.
Now imagine that Bill in accounting voted against the soda machine. He has a strong hatred for caffeinated soft drinks, thinks they are bad you you, whatever. He campaigns throughout the office to get the machine removed. Well, management decides “OK, we’ll ask again” and again, the majority of people say “Yes, lets keep the soda machine.”
Bill continues to campaign, and management continues to ask the employees, and every time, the answer is in favor of the soda machine. This happens, lets say… 35 times. Eventually, Bill says “OK, I’M NOT PROCESSING PAYROLL ANYMORE UNTIL THE SODA MACHINE IS REMOVED”, so nobody will get paid unless management removes the machine.
What should we do???
Answer: Fire Bill and get someone who will do the f*cking job.
Bonus: Bill tells everyone that he was willing to “Negotiate”, to come to a solution where everyone got their payroll checks, but only so long as that negotiation capitulated to his demand to remove the soda machine.
Bill is a f*cking jackass.
obviously it's not perfect, but you can see how the republicans are using the performance of their required duties as a bargaining chip. that is not a negotiation. there is no way the democrats can give in to this. there are other legitimate avenues for challenging the ACA (which the republicans have taken and failed in), but this is the basest, most irresponsible and vile way to do it.
I'm replying to you as an example, but the same goes for a lot of the previous page.
How about we cast the situation in another light, one that shines light on both sides.
First off, if the Republicans (I mean the number of votes in their side of the house, it's not a person) were interested in voting in the new budget despite the debt issues/Obamacare, they would have done so.
Likewise, if Obama/Pelosi were keen on a budget, he could have conceded on Obamacare. (Arguments regarding "Republicans already lost on Obamacare, it's no longer allowed to discuss it" are naturally demagoguery. If Congress can change Obamacare now, and it can not pass a budget, the topic remains on the table until it's dropped. To make it painfully obvious, we could have never abolished slavery if congress cannot redo legislation.)
From here we see that it's in the interest of both parties to stick to their guns, making the current situation the opening gambit for the congressional elections in under 2 years time.
Looking at this thread (and being quite unhappy about how uninformative the posts generally are, and how little facts are being presented), one sees that the past is not discussed rigorously. For example, why is Obama unwilling to negotiate with the Republicans this time, while he took a strong role in the last debt discussion where concessions were made on both sides? The word on the streets is that the debacle on Syria and the mess with assigning the Fed chairman has weakened Obama's standing sufficiently that his party is demanding action on the incoming congressional elections. Hence the shift in negotiating position.
If we look at the debt ceiling as a mechanism, it is there to achieve one purpose: sustainable governance such that each time the debt ceiling is reached, the government can plot a course for sustainable spending. When this happened in 1995, it achieved its purpose and the budget was balanced (hooray for Bill Clinton, and his bipartisan skills).
So you can see why the Republicans were caught unawares by a President that did not come to the negotiating table, but told them to just lift the ceiling (with a well-oiled PR campaign to boot). This is why it seems like the Republicans are the devils themselves on this issue.
But what should happen is that the two sides plot a course which stops the US from going deeper into debt. Obamacare is just the strongest bargaining chip the Republicans have at the moment, but I don't think they or anyone else believes that substantial changes will be made to the ACA. The actual common ground on spending cuts and tax raises will be reached at the negotiating table, as it always has.
P.S. I've intentionally smoothed over a number of details in the narrative so I don't need to write until my fingers bleed. Before you start nitpicking, consider whether they make a difference to the overall story (hint, they don't).
Americans who argue against free and equal healthcare for everybody amaze me. So cash flow should dictate life expectency, and poor people should die from diseases that could easily be cured.
amazing, you really have dont a good job at creating a society that benefits humanity as little as possible and instead does nothing but worship and bow before the dollar sign. your countrys knees must be killing themselves, maybe thats why your economy is falling over ?
When you stray too far on the right scale (liberalism/pseudo-regulated capitalism) or too far left (socialism) you eventually collapse. stay in the middle like germany or sweden etc, we are doing great.
"If we look at the debt ceiling as a mechanism, it is there to achieve one purpose: sustainable governance such that each time the debt ceiling is reached, the government can plot a course for sustainable spending. When this happened in 1995, it achieved its purpose and the budget was balanced (hooray for Bill Clinton, and his bipartisan skills). "
Lol sustainable spending, if the spending was sustainable the debt ceiling wouldnt need to be adjusted in the first place. Obama won the presidential elections,he should be allowed to make a few laws. The presidency of the usa is just a symbolical function if the president have no say at all in politics and is completely dependant on the house wich was voted for 2 years earlier. If obama gives in to the house it would basicly mean that the house is in full control of usa politics and can make the president do annything they want. This is not the way it is supposed to be.
And its not only obama that resufes to negotiate, the republicans are refusing to negotiate as well. Get rid of obama care or we will let the country default, how is that negotiating lol?
According to moodys there is a verry small change that the usa will go into default. If you translate this message then it says "its 90% certain that the usa will go into default" My bets are on defaulting. Everyone sees this cliff ahead and we slowly rolling towards it, everyone knows we gonna fall off and noone is doing annything lol,the whole situation is kinda hilarious.
On October 07 2013 15:55 intrigue wrote: yergidy, the republicans are completely in the wrong on this one. i was writing a really sad and angry post in response to your posts but i figured it wouldn't help you understand at all. i've googled a decent analogy for you, hopefully it'll help you get over your fixation on the term "negotiation" and to consider the circumstances of the shutdown:
So, Imagine that the company you work for held a poll, and asked everyone if they thought it would be a good idea to put a soda machine in the break room. The poll came back, and the majority of your colleagues said “Yes”, indicating that they would like a soda machine. Some said no, but the majority said yes. So, a week later, there’s a soda machine.
Now imagine that Bill in accounting voted against the soda machine. He has a strong hatred for caffeinated soft drinks, thinks they are bad you you, whatever. He campaigns throughout the office to get the machine removed. Well, management decides “OK, we’ll ask again” and again, the majority of people say “Yes, lets keep the soda machine.”
Bill continues to campaign, and management continues to ask the employees, and every time, the answer is in favor of the soda machine. This happens, lets say… 35 times. Eventually, Bill says “OK, I’M NOT PROCESSING PAYROLL ANYMORE UNTIL THE SODA MACHINE IS REMOVED”, so nobody will get paid unless management removes the machine.
What should we do???
Answer: Fire Bill and get someone who will do the f*cking job.
Bonus: Bill tells everyone that he was willing to “Negotiate”, to come to a solution where everyone got their payroll checks, but only so long as that negotiation capitulated to his demand to remove the soda machine.
Bill is a f*cking jackass.
obviously it's not perfect, but you can see how the republicans are using the performance of their required duties as a bargaining chip. that is not a negotiation. there is no way the democrats can give in to this. there are other legitimate avenues for challenging the ACA (which the republicans have taken and failed in), but this is the basest, most irresponsible and vile way to do it.
I'm replying to you as an example, but the same goes for a lot of the previous page.
How about we cast the situation in another light, one that shines light on both sides.
First off, if the Republicans (I mean the number of votes in their side of the house, it's not a person) were interested in voting in the new budget despite the debt issues/Obamacare, they would have done so.
Likewise, if Obama/Pelosi were keen on a budget, he could have conceded on Obamacare. (Arguments regarding "Republicans already lost on Obamacare, it's no longer allowed to discuss it" are naturally demagoguery. If Congress can change Obamacare now, and it can not pass a budget, the topic remains on the table until it's dropped. To make it painfully obvious, we could have never abolished slavery if congress cannot redo legislation.)
From here we see that it's in the interest of both parties to stick to their guns, making the current situation the opening gambit for the congressional elections in under 2 years time.
Looking at this thread (and being quite unhappy about how uninformative the posts generally are, and how little facts are being presented), one sees that the past is not discussed rigorously. For example, why is Obama unwilling to negotiate with the Republicans this time, while he took a strong role in the last debt discussion where concessions were made on both sides? The word on the streets is that the debacle on Syria and the mess with assigning the Fed chairman has weakened Obama's standing sufficiently that his party is demanding action on the incoming congressional elections. Hence the shift in negotiating position.
If we look at the debt ceiling as a mechanism, it is there to achieve one purpose: sustainable governance such that each time the debt ceiling is reached, the government can plot a course for sustainable spending. When this happened in 1995, it achieved its purpose and the budget was balanced (hooray for Bill Clinton, and his bipartisan skills).
So you can see why the Republicans were caught unawares by a President that did not come to the negotiating table, but told them to just lift the ceiling (with a well-oiled PR campaign to boot). This is why it seems like the Republicans are the devils themselves on this issue.
But what should happen is that the two sides plot a course which stops the US from going deeper into debt. Obamacare is just the strongest bargaining chip the Republicans have at the moment, but I don't think they or anyone else believes that substantial changes will be made to the ACA. The actual common ground on spending cuts and tax raises will be reached at the negotiating table, as it always has.
P.S. I've intentionally smoothed over a number of details in the narrative so I don't need to write until my fingers bleed. Before you start nitpicking, consider whether they make a difference to the overall story (hint, they don't).
Republicans openly admitting that their party program is 'NO'?
And for what it's worth: From someone who had no clue initially, and then started reading linked articles, and looking at the arguments presented in this discussion:
I have yet to see anything from the Republican side that justifies their actions that is not hogwash. A couple of pages back, there was even an article that the Republicans are now going after the instigator of the whole stunt, because his promises of 'Obama is going to cave' didn't turn out to be true.
Lol sustainable spending, if the spending was sustainable the debt ceiling wouldnt need to be adjusted in the first place.
But as it's not, it has to be adjusted. I don't see what you want to say with that.
Obama won the presidential elections,he should be allowed to make a few laws.
The President cannot make laws. He's part of the executive. Legislature makes laws, that's Congress. There's a third check on this process that's the judiciary. They can also stop laws from coming about.
Republicans openly admitting that their party program is 'NO'?
And so what? Some Republicans have said that they don't want any part of the bipartisan deals (specifically on Obamacare and stimulus spending). That does not in any way negate the fact that Republicans and Democrats negotiated successfully in 2011 to lift the debt ceiling. So, obviously, the Republicans don't always say no. And specifically not on this issue.
To argue that the Republicans should never say "no" misunderstands the role of the opposition.
On October 07 2013 15:55 intrigue wrote: yergidy, the republicans are completely in the wrong on this one. i was writing a really sad and angry post in response to your posts but i figured it wouldn't help you understand at all. i've googled a decent analogy for you, hopefully it'll help you get over your fixation on the term "negotiation" and to consider the circumstances of the shutdown:
So, Imagine that the company you work for held a poll, and asked everyone if they thought it would be a good idea to put a soda machine in the break room. The poll came back, and the majority of your colleagues said “Yes”, indicating that they would like a soda machine. Some said no, but the majority said yes. So, a week later, there’s a soda machine.
Now imagine that Bill in accounting voted against the soda machine. He has a strong hatred for caffeinated soft drinks, thinks they are bad you you, whatever. He campaigns throughout the office to get the machine removed. Well, management decides “OK, we’ll ask again” and again, the majority of people say “Yes, lets keep the soda machine.”
Bill continues to campaign, and management continues to ask the employees, and every time, the answer is in favor of the soda machine. This happens, lets say… 35 times. Eventually, Bill says “OK, I’M NOT PROCESSING PAYROLL ANYMORE UNTIL THE SODA MACHINE IS REMOVED”, so nobody will get paid unless management removes the machine.
What should we do???
Answer: Fire Bill and get someone who will do the f*cking job.
Bonus: Bill tells everyone that he was willing to “Negotiate”, to come to a solution where everyone got their payroll checks, but only so long as that negotiation capitulated to his demand to remove the soda machine.
Bill is a f*cking jackass.
obviously it's not perfect, but you can see how the republicans are using the performance of their required duties as a bargaining chip. that is not a negotiation. there is no way the democrats can give in to this. there are other legitimate avenues for challenging the ACA (which the republicans have taken and failed in), but this is the basest, most irresponsible and vile way to do it.
I'm replying to you as an example, but the same goes for a lot of the previous page.
How about we cast the situation in another light, one that shines light on both sides.
First off, if the Republicans (I mean the number of votes in their side of the house, it's not a person) were interested in voting in the new budget despite the debt issues/Obamacare, they would have done so.
Likewise, if Obama/Pelosi were keen on a budget, he could have conceded on Obamacare. (Arguments regarding "Republicans already lost on Obamacare, it's no longer allowed to discuss it" are naturally demagoguery. If Congress can change Obamacare now, and it can not pass a budget, the topic remains on the table until it's dropped. To make it painfully obvious, we could have never abolished slavery if congress cannot redo legislation.)
From here we see that it's in the interest of both parties to stick to their guns, making the current situation the opening gambit for the congressional elections in under 2 years time.
Looking at this thread (and being quite unhappy about how uninformative the posts generally are, and how little facts are being presented), one sees that the past is not discussed rigorously. For example, why is Obama unwilling to negotiate with the Republicans this time, while he took a strong role in the last debt discussion where concessions were made on both sides? The word on the streets is that the debacle on Syria and the mess with assigning the Fed chairman has weakened Obama's standing sufficiently that his party is demanding action on the incoming congressional elections. Hence the shift in negotiating position.
If we look at the debt ceiling as a mechanism, it is there to achieve one purpose: sustainable governance such that each time the debt ceiling is reached, the government can plot a course for sustainable spending. When this happened in 1995, it achieved its purpose and the budget was balanced (hooray for Bill Clinton, and his bipartisan skills).
So you can see why the Republicans were caught unawares by a President that did not come to the negotiating table, but told them to just lift the ceiling (with a well-oiled PR campaign to boot). This is why it seems like the Republicans are the devils themselves on this issue.
But what should happen is that the two sides plot a course which stops the US from going deeper into debt. Obamacare is just the strongest bargaining chip the Republicans have at the moment, but I don't think they or anyone else believes that substantial changes will be made to the ACA. The actual common ground on spending cuts and tax raises will be reached at the negotiating table, as it always has.
P.S. I've intentionally smoothed over a number of details in the narrative so I don't need to write until my fingers bleed. Before you start nitpicking, consider whether they make a difference to the overall story (hint, they don't).
On October 07 2013 20:32 Rassy wrote: Well nvm actually. I dont care that much about it and i dont mind seeing the mess this whole situation is. After all, i dont even live in the usa
On October 07 2013 19:44 sc2holar wrote: Americans who argue against free and equal healthcare for everybody amaze me. So cash flow should dictate life expectency, and poor people should die from diseases that could easily be cured.
amazing, you really have dont a good job at creating a society that benefits humanity as little as possible and instead does nothing but worship and bow before the dollar sign. your countrys knees must be killing themselves, maybe thats why your economy is falling over ?
When you stray too far on the right scale (liberalism/pseudo-regulated capitalism) or too far left (socialism) you eventually collapse. stay in the middle like germany or sweden etc, we are doing great.
Sweden, Germany or even worse France are a billion light years too far in the left for an american. Our vision of the "middle" is not their vision, not at all. For them it's not the middle but the far left babies eaters communist dictatorships (add cheese eater surrendering monkeys for my country).
They can't even imagine it, it's too far from standard american economical and social culture. We can't get this debate about obamacare and they can't get that we don't get it. It might be the deeper cultural difference (the only one? ) between us and our american friends.
As I am from Germany and we only get the information by the liberal press her, like CNN New York Times or all the other sites in the internet I want to visit, oh also Fox, I don't understand why people are still fighting for the Reps. I do watch the Daily Show, Colbert Report and TYT on YT and when the Tea Party people talk, I just lose faith in the USA. That lunatics are killing your GOP from inside not the Democrats, and you guys are doing nothing about it. Like the WW2 memorial think! watch this and pls tell me what the fuck are this guy doing and why can the talk so much shit and lie without punishment. Thanks!
On October 07 2013 22:13 Scareb wrote: As I am from Germany and we only get the information by the liberal press her, like CNN New York Times or all the other sites in the internet I want to visit, oh also Fox, I don't understand why people are still fighting for the Reps. I do watch the Daily Show, Colbert Report and TYT on YT and when the Tea Party people talk, I just lose faith in the USA. That lunatics are killing your GOP from inside not the Democrats, and you guys are doing nothing about it. Like the WW2 memorial think! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJsczJa0XTI watch this and pls tell me what the fuck are this guy doing and why can the talk so much shit and lie without punishment. Thanks!
I'm not sure if you've ever been to Washington DC, but I live about 20 min south of there and am pretty familiar with this area. There are no gates to the WWII memorial. You have to go out of your way to haul in barricades to block access it. The extra lengths that the park service took are absurd.
On October 07 2013 19:44 sc2holar wrote: Americans who argue against free and equal healthcare for everybody amaze me. So cash flow should dictate life expectency, and poor people should die from diseases that could easily be cured.
amazing, you really have dont a good job at creating a society that benefits humanity as little as possible and instead does nothing but worship and bow before the dollar sign. your countrys knees must be killing themselves, maybe thats why your economy is falling over ?
When you stray too far on the right scale (liberalism/pseudo-regulated capitalism) or too far left (socialism) you eventually collapse. stay in the middle like germany or sweden etc, we are doing great.
Sweden, Germany or even worse France are a billion light years too far in the left for an american. Our vision of the "middle" is not their vision, not at all. For them it's not the middle but the far left babies eaters communist dictatorships (add cheese eater surrendering monkeys for my country).
They can't even imagine it, it's too far from standard american economical and social culture. We can't get this debate about obamacare and they can't get that we don't get it. It might be the deeper cultural difference (the only one? ) between us and our american friends.
Thanks for making such an ignorant post. Since your enormous blanket statement showed how little you know about American culture, politics, and values no one ever again has to suffer through reading your uninformed opinions.
EPT
?
